rm 'dangerous_fn_linter' to fix #173

[mpadge]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 38.35%. Comparing base (b215780) to head (6283afc).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #177      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   33.13%   38.35%   +5.22%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines         338      292      -46     
==========================================
  Hits          112      112              
+ Misses        226      180      -46     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[maelle]

So nice to be able to use more of lintr.

In the PR first comment why not use the "Fix #" syntax to link the PR to the issue? https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/using-keywords-in-issues-and-pull-requests#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue

[maelle]

I think you might be able to rely on the defaults https://lintr.r-lib.org/reference/default_undesirable_functions.html

[mpadge]

Yeah, I pondered that, and it is of course possible, but the current setup has this useful explicit list here:

goodpractice/R/prep_lintr.R

Lines 4 to 13 in c3b60fb

	linters_to_lint <- list(
	assignment_linter = lintr::assignment_linter(),
	line_length_linter = lintr::line_length_linter(80),
	semicolon_linter = lintr::semicolon_linter(allow_compound = TRUE),
	attach_detach_linter = attach_detach_linter(),
	setwd_linter = setwd_linter(),
	sapply_linter = sapply_linter(),
	library_require_linter = library_require_linter(),
	seq_linter = seq_linter()
	)

Bundling all in single default undesirable_functions would then require people to look somewhere in lintr to find out which default functions were considered undesirable. I like this explicit naming more. Does that make sense?

[maelle]

But would there be a way for us not to store the messages here? Like for instance having "Avoid changing the working directory, or restore it in on.exit" in goodpractice source.

[mpadge]

Yes, of course there is! Thank you so much for pushing further. Code in current form is much neater and more robust. thanks!

[mpadge]

So nice to be able to use more of lintr.

In the PR first comment why not use the "Fix #" syntax to link the PR to the issue? docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/working-with-advanced-formatting/using-keywords-in-issues-and-pull-requests#linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue

Sorry, I almost always do that, but was feeling pretty groggy yesterday and wasn't thinking quite right ... But thanks for always catching me out 😆 ❗